HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.20.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Demand to Vacate Lien and Dismiss Code Enforcement Case CE21-00953.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan; Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Little, Melissa; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Cannon, Jamie; Daneluk, Paula
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Demand to Vacate Lien and Dismiss Code Enforcement Case CE21-00953
Date:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 8:07:36 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Please see Board Correspondence -
Lewis LeeAdministrative Technician - ConfidentialButte County Administration25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 • Oroville, CA 95965T: 530.552.3326www.buttecounty.ca.gov | lelee@buttecounty.ca.gov
From: Robert Jackson <robertja1969@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:00 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Cc: DSCodeEnforcement <DSCodeEnforcement@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: Demand to Vacate Lien and Dismiss Code Enforcement Case CE21-00953
Re: APN 058-330-038 | 0 Boardman Lane, Concow, CA | Case No. CE21-00953
---
I am the owner of APN 058-330-038, located at 0 Boardman Lane, Concow, California. I write to formally demand that Butte County vacate the lien in the
amount of $68,045.70 and dismiss Code Enforcement Case CE21-00953 due to material factual error, lack of substantial evidence, and violations of due
process.
---
1. Fundamental Factual Error – Misidentification of Structures
The County’s determination is based on the incorrect assumption that multiple greenhouse structures were located on APN 058-330-038.
As demonstrated in Exhibit A (Actual Structure Locations and Parcel Boundaries), only one greenhouse is located on the subject parcel. The remaining three
greenhouses relied upon in the County’s findings are located on an adjacent parcel (APN 058-330-059), not on the subject property.
Because the County attributed off-site structures to APN 058-330-038, the findings regarding the scale and severity of the violation are factually incorrect.
---
2. Lack of Substantial Evidence
Under Topanga Assn. v. County of Los Angeles, administrative findings must be supported by substantial evidence and must bridge the analytic gap
between the evidence and the decision.
Here, the County’s findings—including an estimated 8,000 square feet of cultivation and approximately 450 plants—are inconsistent with the actual
conditions of APN 058-330-038, which contains only a single greenhouse. The record reflects reliance on aerial observations and limited roadway
inspections without verification of parcel boundaries.
Accordingly, the County’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence.
---
3. Failure to Resolve Material Factual Disputes
The administrative record reflects that conflicting information was presented regarding the location of the cultivation activity, including statements
indicating that the primary grow was located on a different parcel.
Despite this, the County proceeded to a final determination without resolving this material factual discrepancy.
Administrative bodies are required to address and resolve conflicting evidence before issuing a decision. Proceeding in the face of unresolved factual
uncertainty constitutes an abuse of discretion under California law.
---
4. Improper Assessment of Daily Penalties
The County imposed approximately $61,000 in daily penalties, implying more than 60 days of continuous violation.
However, the record reflects:
- Limited access to the property
- Observations conducted primarily from the roadway or aerial imagery
- No verified timeline establishing continuous violation specific to APN 058-330-038
Moreover, the scale of the alleged violation is based on structures not located on the subject parcel. As a result, the penalty calculation is not supported by
verified conditions and is arbitrary.
---
5. Violation of Due Process – Failure of Notice
The County’s notice procedures were not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the property owner.
Correspondence was addressed to “0 Boardman Ln,” which is not a valid mailing address, and at least one notice was returned undelivered. Despite having
actual knowledge that notice had failed, the County proceeded without taking additional reasonable steps to notify the property owner.
Under Jones v. Flowers, when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, due process requires the government to take additional reasonable steps to provide
notice. No such steps appear to have been taken here.
Additionally, due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Horn v. County of Ventura. Because I did not receive actual notice, I was
deprived of the opportunity to participate in the hearing or present evidence correcting the County’s factual errors.
---
6. Improper Proceeding Despite Known Uncertainty
At the time of the hearing, the County was aware of uncertainty regarding whether the cultivation activity was located on APN 058-330-038. Rather than
continuing or reopening the matter to verify these material facts, the County proceeded to impose substantial penalties and record a lien.
Proceeding under unresolved factual uncertainty further undermines the validity of the decision and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
---
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Based on the foregoing, I respectfully demand that Butte County:
1. Vacate the lien recorded against APN 058-330-038
2. Set aside the administrative order in Case CE21-00953
3. Dismiss the enforcement action due to lack of factual and legal support
Alternatively, I request that the County:
- Reopen the matter
- Conduct a new hearing based on verified parcel boundaries and accurate evidence
---
NOTICE OF INTENT
While I prefer to resolve this matter cooperatively, I am prepared to pursue all available legal remedies, including a petition for writ of mandate, if necessary.
This matter has had a significant financial and personal impact, and I respectfully request that the County review the enclosed evidence and take corrective
action.
---
Please confirm receipt of this correspondence and advise on next steps within ten (10) business days.
Sincerely,
Robert Jackson
530-552-0113
Robertja1969@gmail.com
Enclosure: Exhibit A – Actual Structure Locations and Parcel Boundaries